The dismissiveness in this thread is unreal. From the comments you'd think the article only had one sentence insulting the Sanctity of Cargo Pants. If you happily wear baggy jeans or cargo pants, these are not for you and you don't have the problem they solve.
It's an elegant solution to wear slim fitted pants without awful hip pocket bulges. Cargo pants are not the solution here, as they are huge and baggy and the pockets flop around with anything in them.
They implement this pocket strategy and work well for me. The author would likely be interested to know that this topic was covered in detail as an engineering exercise in NASA flight suits. More functional pockets for people strapped into a vehicle.
One of the more interesting innovations was a pocket on the top of the thigh for holding flight checklists or maps. It had a clear cover so that what was inside the pocket could be viewed without taking it out. A phone pocket like that would be pretty cool (and way nerdy but hey, if the pocket fits ... :-))
I recall clicking a Duluth Trading link from a thread not so unlike this on HN years ago and then being followed by ads for their jeans across the internet for at least a year. Of course, I remember that just after clicking your link.
Lucky you people: I've been followed around the web for over ten years with Google ads for scammy dating sites (since Zoosk if anyone can remember that).
When I click the x I only get another scammy dating site.
And unlike GP I cannot remember visiting one in the first place :-/
Head's up to anyone considering these pants, as I did -- reading the reviews, it appears they changed the design of these pants recently, replacing some of the zippers with velcro, and using different material. It doesn't appear to be popular with their audience.
I can't tell from that detailed picture but can you reach the bottom of the pocket without leaning over? Because both the diagram and the picture of the pants in the current submission suggests that without leaning over you could maybe grab your phone with the tip of your fingers. Could you for example use the pockets to warm up your hands?
Also the lower the pocket is, the higher the chance stuff will jiggle around if you run or simply walk faster, because it has more room to do it down the leg and the range of motion is wider. Is this the case with the phone in one of these pockets?
Do the Duluth trousers "anchor the bottom of the pocket bag to the side seam" as well? To me this seems like a clever solution that I haven't seen before.
Does Duluth have a single pair of pants without synthetic fibers at this point? Trying to cut down my micro plastics footprint. (My base layers can be drip dried, which makes them less problematic)
> They implement this pocket strategy and work well for me.
Superficially, perhaps. But the zipper inclusion makes your example the "strategic" difference that properly considers the importance of what might be stored in such a pocket. IMHO, the author's approach is overshadowed by cost cutting, where the narrative serves to distract the reader with discourse on "method" that doesn't quite align with the original problem description.
At first I was intensely disappointed by the post ("why so wordy?", "why no pictures?"), but then I got to the design part and said "holy shit I want this".
If people are happy with their cargo pants, no worries . It doesn't conform to a lot of current fashion aesthetic, but if that doesn't hit a person's radar, then cool, great. But a lot of people in the thread here are feeling attacked because someone doesn't like to wear the pants they like to wear.
Fashion is aesthetic and therefore subjective, and it changes over time. At one point cargo pants might have even been "cool". I don't remember them ever being "office" though.
I also really want these! I wear slim-to-skinny jeans and my phone eventually stretches the jean fabric above the pocket and you can see a white outline of my phone. As manufacturers kept increasing mobile screen sizes I'd have to make sure my phone could actually fit in my pocket when buying pants as not every brand consistently use the same pocket depth.
Last time I wore cargo pants (probably the late 90s) I remember everything just annoyingly swing around as I walked.
I get Pixel phones to get stock Android and reliable updates and the smallest I can get are ~6 inch phones. If a 5 inch Pixel was released I'd buy it in a heartbeat
I have the Pixel 3a right now. It's a 6" phone with a 5.6" display. I was referring to total phone size. On top of that I add a phone case because I've dropped previous phones and caused (slight) damage so it's an absolute must for me. I use the pixel fabric cases google sells which only increases my dimensions to 6.12 in (155.54 mm) x 2.93 in (74.33 mm)
So not wanting to wear cargo pants because I think they look like shit makes me classiest and racist?
This kind of behavior where people are labeling anything and everything racist is very much harmful, and makes every sensible people less sensitive to racist claims.
Not to detract from your point, but there are plenty of fashion-conscious people that do manual labor for a living too. They just look down on 'fancy' clothes. "How is that guy going to get any work done in those clothes?" And yeah, they will get offended if you tell them their Carhartt / Duluth Trading Company apparel that can potentially cost more than serviceable office wear doesn't look good.
Well, jeans were invented for miners, pretty sure you see everyone who wears them as a manual laborer too, and by that extent, if you are ok with jeans, but not with cargo pants, then issue is not with the wearer.
I disagree, cargo pants were a fashion choice eschewed by most "laborers" at the time because they were made out of materials that wouldn't stand up to heavy use.
They’re too bulky and swingy for most people doing physical work, while also not being able to hold most things they’d really want to, versus typical work pants that might have like one big extra internal pocket on the thigh and a hammer loop maybe but are mostly gonna be about heavy canvas fabric or denim, double-layer knees or fronts, reinforced stitching and rivets in the right places, stuff like that. Your average cargo pants fall apart when subjected to physical labor because they’re not actually built for it, they mostly use low-quality runs of chino-type fabrics of one kind or another, and those damn pockets just get in the way all the time if you actually put stuff in them (and sometimes even if you don’t—they’re very snag-prone).
I think it’s fair to characterize them as faux-workwear, for the most part. Some folks can get away with them and do wear them because they’re cheap and easy to find, but anyone who really wears their work clothes will usually go for something else. Doing handyman stuff around the house, fine. Framing houses, you’ll be shredding a pair every few weeks, and some you’ll probable rip at the seams the first or second wear.
Tradespeople generally don’t wear ‘cargo pants’ that you can buy at Kohl’s. They wear jeans or work pants from Dickies/Carhartt/Duluth Trading.
I manage tradespeople and go to job sites often.
Cargo pants to me are an unfortunate holdover from the 90s fashion worn by people who don’t particularly care about how they look. People wear clothes for various reasons, including utility.
For women the problem is worse since we are too curvy to use the exact location of pockets even when clothes are baggy.
I find the solution interesting even for women. I solved the same problem by putting the pockets horizontally at the waist. I will try moving the pocket down to the upper leg.
Further, we are all curvy in different ways. I couldn't wear either of the trousers he made, without the fabric bunching. Other women might fit one or the other, or none. I like my pockets in the back, for example, but I need zips so things don't fall out and maybe a way of securing them so things don't get stolen and well it's all too hard so I just carry a purse unless it's running pants and I just need to slot my house key in there..
I hope for the return for Zozosuit, personally. I didn't get a chance to buy anything before they shut down but I enjoyed the measurement process and was hopeful for a good pair of jeans.
Probably not very hard, but it will cost 10x more than regular clothes. Current process is highly efficient and produces thousands of units per day with a dozen of low skilled workers. Whatever is not automated (and it's not much) benefits from dirt cheap labour in Bangladesh or Vietnam.
Your sewing robot will make a dozen of units per day and cost hundreds of thousands. Monthly salary of just several sw engineers from SV is probably greater than total operational expenses of a medium-sized factory in India for a year.
There was a ‘startup’ that planned for the client to take a bunch of measurements and would then manufacture a garment to those. A post, which floated on HN, detailed why it turned out to not be too feasible.
Edit: it was ‘Getwear’, found the name through the design company portfolio. They specialized in jeans. Alas, since the site is dead, I can't locate the postmortem, only this article in Russian: https://vc.ru/offline/6359-getwear-close
Basically, it seems that the demand just isn't there.
Suits to measure aren't a new thing, but suits are expected to last for quite a while and thus they cost a bunch. Additionally, dunno about Indochino's web offering but they have offline shops where somebody takes measurements for you the old way, so apparently that's the experience many customers expect.
Tailored clothing can be surprisingly inexpensive, especially outside the US. A 3D scan / in-person fitting and then overseas garment manufacturing could be a solid business model.
I suggest, as I stated in my other post, looking at the LuLuLemon pockets - specifically, having the pocket be a webbing/spandex material which cinches the contents of the pocket to the body such that it doesnt flop about and also secures the contents into the pocket.
I like the horizontal, but maybe a 15 degree angle would be best, however, do the horiz pockets get in the way when you sit?
The pockets don't get in the way when I sit because the pocket is just below the waist.
I started with the Silhouette 3 piece yoga pattern (which has a side panel) and made the pocket horizontal. It seems to me you can take an off-the-rack pair of pants and make the same modification.
I have heard that it may be cheaper to have a pair of off the shelf pants tailored than to keep looking for the perfect fit (eg among more niche products).
I wonder how much extra you’d pay for extra pockets.
>Cargo pants are not the solution here, as they are huge and baggy and the pockets flop around with anything in them.
You're getting the wrong pants if that's the case.
For a time now, I've been buying work pants almost exclusively. Not the cargo pants with flappy hip pockets, but the lighter duty work pants or "service pants", though I'm not 100% sure of the correct english word for them. They're work pants, but not made for heavy physical labor.
Specifically I've been buying pants from the Swedish brand Blåkläder. The quality is just so far beyond chinos or affordable jeans you can get today, and there are so many practical pockets. Even though I work in an office as a computer toucher, I like wearing these work pants, also as a statement of solidarity with the people who ply their trades out in the real world.
If you want something that doesn't have cargo pockets, Varusteleka's tactical jeans are utterly amazing, the most comfortable jeans I've ever worn. Their worker pants are great too, but somewhat more old-fashioned in design.
Slim fit pants just need to go away forever, honestly. They're needlessly uncomfortable for literally not benefit at all, plus you even look stupid in them.
I considered that term, but the ones I like the most are made from heavyweight cotton twill, similar in weight to denim but with a different weave and feel. Whereas I think combat pants are generally some sort of polycotton or cordura ripstop fabric.
So it's "service" as in service tech or mechanic, not military service.
Another UK commenter - over here that cotton twill is known as moleskin and a lot of the army surplus is in that fabric which I agree is much nicer than the ripstop stuff
I think it may be more a reaction to the dismissiveness of the article. It basically writes off any disagreement as people dressing for a "pretend job".
The dismissiveness is a reflection of the author's own, plus the fact fashion is inherently classist: It's the rich telling the poor they don't dress well, and making up rules for why they're right. It's impossible to gainsay those rules, because you end up with a courtier's reply, in very nearly the literal sense.
oh for goodness sake -- there is no community on earth that doesn't have rules about "fashion"
You think low income people don't? Try wearing a skinny tie and cufflinks to a honkytonk in Oklahoma and see what happens.
I actually had a pair of shorts with a small pocket in around that spot, and I liked putting my phone in there. I can totally get behind this idea, though I'd like to try these first.
Guess what, people do not like being insulted. If you are going to say to a large number of people that their clothes and by extension them "look bad" you are going to get a lot of pissed off responses. It is completely healthy and miles better than the alternative of internalizing it, believing you look bad feeling embarrassment, humiliation, guilt, etc.
By the way this is the way the fashion industry has operated for a long time and people are rightfully sick of it.
The author would have done much better to avoid making general statements. He could have said something like "i really do not like the way pockets look on my pants. I like to wear tight pants and large pockets really ruin that look."
Where did the author insult cargo pants users? This is all I saw mentioning cargo pants in the article.
> Appendix: Sam, have you simply invented cargo pants?
> No. Cargo pants solve different problems
for different people.
> If cargo pants are appropriate for your
daily life, you definitely don’t want or need
my side-seam welt pockets; and vice-versa.
Cargo pants aren’t office-wear; these dress
pants aren’t combat-wear.
EDIT: it seems like the author edited the article. Never mind.
Can we have opinions on our clothes without having to give every random person on the Internet a full justification?
Why yes, yes we can.
But, OK, let's answer it. The first answer is right in the fine article: Hip pockets lead to bad posture when sitting. They cause back pain.
The second answer is that if you dress for aesthetic instead of functional reasons, one of the very first concerns is silhouette. And if you care about that, you often care about the torso first, lines second, limbs third. (Note: Since it's an aesthetic judgment, it depends on your preferences)
Hip pockets ruin the look of the torso and lines from any angle except a pure frontal view. Worse, they ruin it for tight and loose fitting clothes (because for loose fit, hip pockets with anything of significant weight hangs awkwardly)
This pocket design addresses the first issue completely, and the second issue somewhat. (You'll still notice a change in the line especially on tight fit, but it's less noticeable because it's not affecting torso, and it's not at the end of limbs - which get more attention than the middle)
Maybe our list of maximes to follow should include "we must assume that people have a reason for what they do, and question somebody else's aesthetical judgment followed by an accusation that they're uninformed or unquestioning is not the best conversational gambit".
> The second answer is that if you dress for aesthetic instead of functional reasons, one of the very first concerns is silhouette.
See, I think you've missed what everyone in this thread is trying to get at. The defense of cargo pants is based on a pretty simple dialectic:
· Who determines what is fashionable or "aesthetic"?
Mostly, the people who design, sell, and advertise clothes. And also, people who directly profit off of being fashionable.
· What metrics do they use to decide what they're going to call fashionable?
Mostly, whatever will allow them to change styles from year to year and sell as many products as possible and maintain their position at the top of the fashion world.
· Is it in our interests to buy into this system of fashion?
No! In fact this dialectic has shown that fashion is basically bullshit, and that it's not just morally neutral but good to resist! To try to come up with our own fashions based on what appeals to us personally or simply wearing whatever has the most utility.
For the record, I don't necessarily agree with this argument (I lean towards fashion-neutral), but I think this pattern of thinking is extremely common in hacker culture. While I'm cynical about how fashion is created, I don't wear cargo pants either, but that's because I find them much less comfortable than a straight (not slim) cut pair of jeans.
I really struggle to believe that there’s some secret cabal of garment manufacturers conspiring to decide what modifications of their clothes will be desirable in the next season. One reason is that the industry is competitive and mostly full of low margins. If you collude with (some of) your competitors to sell the same thing then your market becomes both smaller and more competitive. Another is that fashion changes don’t necessarily benefit the companies who were previously doing well. I doubt that most of the jeans manufacturers would have wanted leggings to have become so popular, for example.
> See, I think you've missed what everyone in this thread is trying to get at.
Not really, no. "Aesthetic" is "concerned with beauty", not necessarily "beautiful". If you do care about beauty, you care about shape, texture, color.
> Who determines what is fashionable or "aesthetic"?
These are two different things - the first one emerges as industry consensus, the second is your sense of beauty.
> What metrics do they use to decide what they're going to call fashionable?
Literally, I don't care. At all. The discussion wasn't about fashion. OP asked why people would consider hip pockets ugly. The answer was "people who prioritize beauty over function". There's no "they" who determine beauty. We have our own preferences.
My reply wasn't about fashion. It doesn't mention fashion with a single word. Neither does OP. And so I'm deeply amused to see that you think I didn't read closely enough.
> Can we have opinions on our clothes without having to give every random person on the Internet a full justification?
If you phrase them as universals, thereby implicitly criticizing everyone who has different tastes, expect pushback from everyone whose tastes disagree.
If you phrase it as personal preference and accept the less dramatic expression that that supports, you’ll get less pushback.
If you phrase it as a universal and then have an offended response to the pushback because people should respect the difference in tastes, then, well, you've got a reasonable complaint but are directing it in the wrong direction.
As a complete antithesis to this point of view, I like the silhouette that work/service pants give me. When paired with a good polo shirt, it gives off the confident vibe that I know perfectly well where I'm going and what I'm doing and that there's no need to interrupt me for whatever reasons, because I'm probably doing something important. I've never had so few religious people/coupon hawkers annoy me on the street and so many people decide to ask me for directions over everyone else in crowded streets before I started dressing like this.
Obviously the broad-shouldered build, full beard, glasses and balding head help sell the appearance.
Fashion is only for people who need other people to tell them what to wear.
I do not think you would find a single person who would call it fashionable. I don't dress based on aesthetics, I dress based on practicality and comfort. How it happens to look is a consequence, not a goal.
Form follows function. I don't wear boots because I think they look good, I wear them because they're comfortable to walk around in for a whole day and last much longer than regular shoes.
I don't wear polo shirts because they look good, I wear them because they're comfortable and because the collar is practical to avoid sunburn on my neck. They also tend to last longer than t-shirts.
I don't wear work pants because they look good, I wear them because they're comfortable, last longer than regular pants and because they have a bunch of practical pockets.
The end result may be that I do fit a certain type of look, but that is incidental and was never the goal in itself.
Fashion trends are pointless and destructive. They herd us into cheaply made fast fashion and is a great factor in our willfull destruction of the environment.
Fashion and fast fashion are different things. I dress fairly practically as well. Even in work wear, there is fashion involved — although some of the changes in fashion may be driven by practical or safety considerations much more than appearance, appearance still makes a difference.
For each of the things that you’ve mentioned (boots are comfortable and last longer, etc) that you attribute as “form following function”, each of the functions may be fit by alternative forms.
You say you wear boots: what type? Even within steel-toed work boots there’s several different styles and fashions, and colour makes a difference. I did a quick search and on “Boot Barn”, there are 611 styles of steel-toed work shoes. For “style”, you have: 202 pull-on style, 172 lace-up (137 6" and 80 8"); 66 cowboy; 30 high/low top; 28 logger; 20 hiking; 19 roper; 19 wedge; 16 slip-on; 16 work sneaker; 10 driving shoe; 9 authentic; 7 Chukka; 7 Oxfords… You have work shoes that are heavily rubberized for electrical hazards; you have anti-slip.
You picked a style of boots that you _liked_. You may have had functional reasons for picking boots in the first place, but whether you want to admit it or not, you picked a particular _fashion_.
When you buy polo shirts (which I don’t wear because they look _awful_ on me, and they’re not at all comfortable), do you have colours and/or brands that you buy regularly? You might buy Lacoste brand entirely because you’ve found their quality good, or maybe you buy Hilfigger (or do you buy an entirely different brand because both Lacoste and Hilfigger are too “fashion”, so you’ve chosen the “anti-fashion” fashion brand?). Do you always buy the same two or three colours of polo shirts? You’re following a fashion.
Fashion is what people _do_. It’s not this amorphous thing. What is fashionable this year is not fashionable next year. Sometimes this is driven by fashion designers, but more often than not, a “fashion trend” takes two to ten years to catch on and become popular enough to become a “trend”. (Was punk a fashion trend? No, but it spawned at least three or four fashion trends out of it as people started to follow the scene and then age out of it.)
So dude, what you wear _is_ your fashion. You may not think that it’s fashionable, but you’re choosing your look based on an aesthetic that you believe you inhabit _whether you think so or not_. Otherwise, you’d have chosen an entirely _different_ look based on the same functional requirements you stated.
Of course there are multiple possible forms to the same function, and even the workers segment is subject to silly whims of fashion. However, a set of basic practical and durable work pants generally looks the same now as they did 20 years ago, and will probably look about the same 20 years from now.
If you buy from the fashion-adjacent brands, some of which have also introduced streetwear collections, of course they will reflect some trends. If you buy from brands that purely make work clothes, practicality still comes first, because if they don't last, they just lost a repeat customer. The main drivers in that segment are durability and comfort, not looks.
Generally I just try to avoid clothes with obviously tacked-on flair and garish design elements. That means I mostly buy straight forward work pants and shirts, polos/t-shirts with no logos (or minimal logos for polos, they're hard to find without the traditional little logo on them), and boots/shoes in subdued or clean classic designs. I like the Norwegian M77 military boots because they're affordable, comfortable and super durable, and because they don't scream "look at me I'm so tacticool!", unlike a lot of newer designs. They've been made unchanged since 1977, and they obviously got it right.
Is it fashion or anti-fashion? I don't know, I just don't want to be a walking billboard for silly trends.
I've had this discussion a number of times, and I guess it really bugs people that not everyone cares obsessively about fashion and outward appearance as they do.
Just stop buying trends. Buy sustainable and long-lasting. Repair when things break. Keep the same things for as long as possible instead of buying something new all the time. Frequent thrift shops.
> I've had this discussion a number of times, and I guess it really bugs people that not everyone cares obsessively about fashion and outward appearance as they do.
If that’s what you got from what I said, then either I’ve failed to make what I’m saying clear or you’ve misinterpreted what I’ve said. I don’t actually care how you dress. As a lot of people are fond of saying—words have meanings. And what _you_ define as “fashion” is a small (but vocal and visible) subset of what the word “fashion” means. Sadly, even if one is trying to buck trends…you’re participating in a trend of bucking trends.
You are describing a fashion—a trend even—that resonates with a certain number of people.
I am also amused that you recommend visiting thrift shops. Fashion “leaders” tend to make their own clothing, visit thrift shops (because often they are poor artists trying to make their own way and can’t afford or don’t like the current fast fashion trends), and combine clothing in ways that (sometimes) eventually becomes a fashionable trend.
(Consider the pre-ripped jeans trend. This wasn’t caused by some “Fashion Overlord” deciding that this would be some year’s fashion. People who became fashionable wore their jeans into the ground and looked good in them. Other people couldn't/didn’t want to rip their jeans or wear them into the ground like that, but felt that having ripped jeans gave them some sort of fashion credibility…so it became something that mattered in fast fashion. But it started from someone who didn’t decide to make a fashion statement as such anyway.)
It feels like you're very bent on casting everything in a vain and appearance-focused light.
I'm not sure how much more clear I can make it: none of my clothing choices are based on fashion nor on appearance, other than the basic requirement of actually being dressed and not wearing ragged scraps.
My choices are based on practicality. If someone wants to turn that into fashion, they can go right ahead, it won't change my choices.
> Can we have opinions on our clothes without having to give every random person on the Internet a full justification?
Yes, which is why I'm suspicious of people who make dictates and maxims about fashion.
My point is that those maxims were created by people who have an obvious incentive to sell you more things, and having you supplement pants with carrying bags would benefit them.
We must also take unconscious racism and classism into account when judging the fashion dictates of others: "Big pockets make it look like you work for a living! We must therefore shun big pockets!" is not exactly value-neutral.
Also:
> Hip pockets lead to bad posture when sitting. They cause back pain.
Good thing we're not talking about hip pockets, but pockets farther down the leg.
> We must also take unconscious racism and classism into account when judging the fashion dictates of others: "Big pockets make it look like you work for a living! We must therefore shun big pockets!" is not exactly value-neutral.
No, we must not. The only thing fashion miss is ideological foundations, then it'd take just one more step for it to make following fashion mandatory for everyone with legal repercussions for not following fashion trends enough.
There are different reasons to dislike big pockets. Different people have different reasons. If some people have racist between their reasons to dislike baggy pants, it doesn't mean that to dislike baggy pants is equal to be a racist. If the most stupid person in the world believes that sky is blue, it doesn't mean, that sky is green.
Well, there are actually many countries with legal repercussions for following the wrong fashion, especially for women. Even in Europe and the USA, many kinds of clothes we wear today would have likely been considered indecent and could have gotten the police involved, if worn on the streets 100 or so years ago.
Obviously this is a personal preference. For example. I think they’re awful. I don’t think these pants are the solution though. I do appreciate the effort.
Cargo pants solve different problems for different people.
If cargo pants are appropriate for your daily life, you definitely don’t want or need my side-seam welt pockets; and vice-versa. Cargo pants aren’t office-wear; these dress pants aren’t combat-wear.
This is not dismissing cargo pants or the wearing thereof. This is dismissing the failure to grasp that details matter a lot in fashion, and the detailing in cargo pants renders them inappropriate to certain contexts. It even directly acknowledges that this goes both ways, and that the detailing on these pants would render them inappropriate to the contexts that cargo pants are designed for (if not limited to).
The article has been edited. A few scrolls below, the article was quoted[0] as saying:
>No. Cargo pants are fashion-as-pretend-occupation — when not at work, wear a fancy chronometer to suggest you’re a pilot or a diver, or camo to suggest you’re in the military. Cargo pants are a paratrooper costume. Cargo shorts have giant external pouches so teenagers in the 90’s, trapped in school, could say (sartorially) “I go out into the world and do adventurous things!” even though the things they stored in those pouches were doritos and portable cd players.
>I am discussing clothing as it might be worn by people while doing their real jobs, not their pretend ones. If cargo pants are appropriate for your real job, you definitely don’t want or need my side-seam welt pockets; and vice-versa."
Pants with various side pockets have been around for literally decades -- in a wide variety of styles. I even had a pair of nice looking dress slacks in the late 90s with pockets that were almost exactly like this and were for holding phones, wallets, and PDAs. I think I got them at Costco since shock the pants being so fitted made them uncomfortable to hold stuff in the other pockets.
It's a nice blog post showing why they solve a problem and how to iterate, but it's about as novel as wearing a coat to keep from getting cold. I suspect you and the blog author are unusual in that you don't know about this pretty common pant type.
I've never seen dress pants with side pockets like this (that is, not cargo pants) for sale at a major retailer. If they really are so common, what are they called and can you point me to an online store selling them?
In the end, I didn't really care for them and it looks like most people didn't either as they're discontinued. The cargo pocket was more fussy than just putting my stuff in the regular old pockets. I think I remember hitting things with my knees a lot in certain positions.
These days? I guess it depends on what you consider "dress pants", but for pants that don't scream "I'm working construction or shooting a gun during an invasion"...looking around for a bit, Dickies, Red Kap, Scottevest (promoted by Steve Wozniak specifically as a good pair of pants for big phones), Docker D3 line. I've definitely seen them at places like Target, JoS.A.Bank, etc.
Tactical brands like 5.11, Woolrich, Propper, etc. will also sell "discreet" or "concealed carry" cargo pants that look basically like normal slacks.
There's also a ton of plain old fitted and fashion cargo pants around too. I think Armani, Betabrand, etc. has some. They look a bit obnoxious to me I'm afraid.
In jeans they even predate the "mobile pocket" fad, they've been called "carpenter's pockets". It seems somewhat classist to dismiss the innovation simply because it looks like "working construction" and comes from such a blue collar background. (Which makes sense, why wouldn't innovations in functionality over fashion originate in blue collar spaces?)
As a 90s nerd that fell into a habit of carpenter pants when they were briefly cool, but came to respect the "mobile pocket" functionality of having a pocket further down the leg towards the knees. It's really fast/convenient to move things (especially phones) in/out of. It's continued to surprise me how slow it has been to be adapted to other pants. If it takes the "mobile pocket" rebrand, that's fine, but it's still somewhat rude to forget the blue collar roots of the idea.
(It also amuses me that while the article addresses the cargo pants criticism, doesn't seem familiar with either the "mobile pocket" or "carpenter's pocket" name.)
Although as a programmer, no one would bat an eye if I wore shorts to work, even, so I find the author's claims that cargos can't be worn to an office kind of outdated. Maybe he's a car salesman or something and his boss forces his to wear a suit.
>"Appendix: Sam, have you simply invented cargo pants?
>No. Cargo pants are fashion-as-pretend-occupation — when not at work, wear a fancy chronometer to suggest you’re a pilot or a diver, or camo to suggest you’re in the military. Cargo pants are a paratrooper costume. Cargo shorts have giant external pouches so teenagers in the 90’s, trapped in school, could say (sartorially) “I go out into the world and do adventurous things!” even though the things they stored in those pouches were doritos and portable cd players.
>I am discussing clothing as it might be worn by people while doing their real jobs, not their pretend ones. If cargo pants are appropriate for your real job, you definitely don’t want or need my side-seam welt pockets; and vice-versa."
Apologies if I'm dense but it is just a reinvention of cargo pants albeit in a more slick way.
And several techwear brands already provide this kind of pockets and gravity pockets as well
Yeah, I felt somewhat slandered by the attack on cargo pants. I wore them in high school and still wear them to this day for comfort and convenience. There is a functional elegance of being able to have pens, a small note book, keys+wallet and phone in separate pockets easily accessible. It's like having a preponderance of tabs open, but for pants.
Wasn't meant to be an attack -- they just solve a different problem for a different demographic. Like I said -- if you can wear cargo pants at work, then these pants probably don't mean much to you.
I dunno, "fashion-as-pretend-occupation" feels like a negative connotation, sort of a "stolen valor" for professions the supposed person imagines as more prestigious or moral than what they actually do, adventurer or craftsman vs, say, insurance claims adjuster.
> I dunno, "fashion-as-pretend-occupation" feels like a negative connotation, sort of a "stolen valor" for professions the supposed person imagines as more prestigious or moral than what they actually do, adventurer or craftsman vs, say, insurance claims adjuster.
I mean, the OG "fashion as pretend occupation" are just pants in general. The purpose of pants is a piece of clothing that lets you ride horses comfortably. Everywhere people started riding horses (and hence wearing pants), it became fashionable for non-horse-riders to wear pants as well.
The world is full of people who own objects that help them project an image, essentially the essence of jewelry.
IMO, that's not really a bad thing (unless your highest value is authenticity) it's just what people do.
This isn't to say that there aren't people who actually use the objects for their intended purpose. But what percent of people who drive trucks regularly haul stuff or drive off-road?
Yeah, it’s a bit intense. I’m a licensed professional engineer who works what is traditional described as a white collar job yet wear cargo pants about every day as I’m regularly in the field supervising and inspecting work. My wife is The winemaker at a small but well know boutique biodynamic winery overlooking the ocean here which is a job many people glamorize, yet likewise she wears cargo pants for work everyday (except for events of course).
By all means cargo pants for a pure coder who doesn’t tinker is sensible, but when I’m hacking away on electronics projects at home they come in handy to hold tools and parts.
In your defense I’ve found the recent trend of wealthy, highly fashionable Women wearing skin tight ancient camo patterns from the mid 20th century equally as deplorable as you speak about cargo pants here, and for all I know there is someone who can disagree with my opinion quite reasonably as well.
EDIT: The little runway video on this link about perfectly sums up everything I feel is wrong. I do not understand anything going on here - all stars with loose camo pants and a denim carhartt jacket? SMH
Perhaps, but there are also a lot of people with not-pretend jobs that can and do wear cargo pants (and shorts!). The implication as originally written was that if you can or do wear such clothing at work, you don’t have a ‘real’ job.
That’s patently ridiculous. Heck, some of my highest earning years of late had me working with customers where I’d be more likely to see flip-flops than a collared shirt.
Blue denim jeans pretty much are cowboy cosplay. That’s why they got popular and why they remain popular. The close association with Marlboro Man rugged outdoorsy “masculinity” is an enduring part of their appeal. Even if people aren’t consciously aware of that association driving them when they appreciate a pair of blue denim jeans decades of advertising has undoubtedly inserted that stereotype firmly into the commmon (sub) conscious. Even the premium Japanese denim brands play with the semiotics of denim as “honest” or “rugged” or “no nonsense” or “not fancy” all of which are tropes drawn from the mid-century American ideal of cowboys as a picture of perfect masculine achievement.
For the people who want a ton of pockets on their pants, cargo pants are pretty much the only option. Do you earnestly believe that all of these people "just like military cosplay"?
Edit: Or maybe I'm wrong, and there are other kinds of pants with many pockets.
Fair enough, but I inferred the "all X is Y" bit from the first sentence, in which you said "I don't think you missed the mark" regarding a paragraph which, IIRC, did essentially imply that cargo shorts are by nature deceitful.
I'm not sure cargo pants themselves are "cosplay". A lot of male fashion comes from military - peacoats, bomber jackets, parkas, trench coats, pretty much any boots, etc. And a lot of it comes from jobs - trucker jackets, denim, engineer coats, boiler coats, etc etc.
It becomes kinda cosplay when you have guy in desert camo cargo pants with huge belt with multitool on it, in desert combat boots and beige t-shirt ... in an office, coding Java.
But I'm the guy who goes there wearing M65, jeans and Doc Martens so who am I to talk.
Also you can get slim and stretch cargo pants, which removes the biggest complaint fashion people ususlly have with cargo pants (OMG HUGE BAGGY) and are more techwear/streetwear than military. Unless you get them in camo.
I'm currently at work (thank Pomodoro for HN breaks, curse Murphy for causing everything to fall apart at the same time on a Friday). I'm a college-educated, homeowner, married, father of one, controls engineer. I spend my days at work between my office programming and designing industrial automation equipment, on the shop floor building it, and customer sites selling, upgrading, or maintaining it. I'm not a punk kid, nor am I a paratrooper, and I don't pretend to be nor do I look like either of those things.
I'm currently wearing cargo pants (Columbia Flex Roc). I typically wear Levi's 541s. The Columbia pants do happen to have a side-seam welt pocket that that meets all your requirements. They're comfortable both in a customer conference room or if I'm on the plant floor inside a machine.
I think the reason people are offended by your characterization is that they wear 'cargo pants' but we are not in a different demographic. My Columbia pants solve the exact problem you have and are worn by people exactly within your demographic. (Not to mention physically closer than you think, after a bit of stalking your website, I'm 20 miles north of you, we probably have some of the same clients).
Though it's also possible that they're not cargo pants, maybe they're dad pants. That.... might be the case. And perhaps you're rebelling against becoming one of 'those' middle-aged men. Just give in to it. Have you tried carrying your multitool in the side seam pocket? It's just so handy! :)
Columbia Flex Roc [0] are not really what I would consider cargo pants. Most people talking about cargo pants are talking about something like a G Star Raw Rovic [1] (which are about the slimmest fitting ones I can find).
Another commenter mentioned fitting a notebook & pen in pockets - I'd struggle to fit them in your current pants.
As someone shocked how many of the commenters here are wearing cargo pants, I'll admit those gstar ones look pretty good and modern. That said, I think you're being very generous by suggesting this crowd is on the cutting edge of cargo pants fashion with slim fit and modern silhouettes.
I was trying not to search along those terms, but yeah that's pretty much what I was thinking. Even as modern as the g star ones are, they are still substantially bulkier than say levis 511s-
I'm really not sure those Columbia trousers are cargo pants at all, they're certainly not what I believe the article author was referring to anyway. (Quite like them though - didn't expect HN to be a place to find clothing recommendations...).
But the only demographic I named was "people who can wear cargo pants to work", so you kind of set me up for a "no true scotsman". There are events, and clients, to which I wouldn't wear cargo pants, therefore we're in different demographics :)
It is a little disheartening to spend so much time talking about cargo pants, when I relegated them to a postscript and only mentioned them to say "I am not talking about cargo pants".
But nice to meet another michigander! Hopefully I'll see you at some meetup or event once we have those sorts of things again.
I think the reason people are spending so much time talking about cargo pants is that they recognize, even if they don't articulate, the logical error on your argument. You spend a good amount of the post talking about how there is a lack of innovation in the fashion world. Instead, changes tend to be incremental. You then claim to have created your own innovation, a new kind of pants pocket. Yours is a new product. "But," your audience rightfully says, "don't pockets like that already exist in some pants?" You respond that the existing pockets are on casual pants, such as cargo pants, and that your pocket is a different product because it is on dress pants. But moving a pocket design from one style of pants to another is exactly the sort of incremental change you that you say shows the absence of innovation in fashion. We're drawn to your cargo pant statement because it is demonstrably false.
> It is a little disheartening to spend so much time talking about cargo pants, when I relegated them to a postscript and only mentioned them to say "I am not talking about cargo pants".
But that is totally your own fault for denigrating cargo pant wearers in the initial version of the post.
He didn't denigrate cargo pants wearers, he just said this design isn't for people who wear them... And then cargo pants wearers decided that was reason to complain even more.
> Cargo pants are fashion-as-pretend-occupation — when not at work, wear a fancy chronometer to suggest you’re a pilot or a diver, or camo to suggest you’re in the military. Cargo pants are a paratrooper costume. Cargo shorts have giant external pouches so teenagers in the 90’s, trapped in school, could say (sartorially) “I go out into the world and do adventurous things!” even though the things they stored in those pouches were doritos and portable cd players.
> I am discussing clothing as it might be worn by people while doing their real jobs, not their pretend ones. If cargo pants are appropriate for your real job, you definitely don’t want or need my side-seam welt pockets; and vice-versa."
You did it to yourself by saying cargo pants aren’t “for the office”. This is a site filled with SWEs who work in offices where a dress code that didn’t allow cargo pants is so laughable it would be a reason to quit.
It’s just standard West-coast backlash against fashion snobbery. You might as well have said that anyone not wearing a 3-piece suit isn’t fit to go into the office.
My interpretation was precisely that: dad pants. Personally, I find cargo pants (and shorts my god) incredibly unflattering. Additionally, the proliferation of pockets is a bit silly for many people since phone, wallet, and keys are fairly easy to fit even in skinny jeans. If you need more than go for it and if you like the look, go for it!
Certainly sounds like an attack. As if someone can't wear cargo pants simply for their utility or, god forbid, find them actually aesthetically appealing.
Lots of jobs do come with a sartorial difficulty level above absolute zero. Not all jobs, but many. Particularly for women (which would be a whole new can of worms we better shouldn't open here)
A widespread low-but-definitely-nonzero would be that you can absolutely wear what you like, but half of the informal roles that are within the scope of your job description are effectively closed unless you dress the part.
Nothing makes me more upset than needing a pad and paper at a moment's notice, but having to reach into a backpack or a messenger bag instead. That feeling of dread when you realize the moment has passed, the thought is gone forever, and if I had only had quick access to my pen and pad, I would have saved a potentially enormously lucrative idea. But the extra 5 seconds to take the paper and pen out of my backpack the one time every year I need to write something down on the go cost me dearly. Now, I optimize for that rare situation. Sure, I look like a 15 year old manchild who never learned to properly dress himself, but that's fine, I work in tech, and don't need to interact with non tech people who have preconceived notions about me.
And don't even get me started on regular pants pockets for your phone or wallet or keys. Sure they fit securely, are easy to access, and are universal, but they're not functionally elegant cargo pockets.
I've worn black combats (name for cargo pants where I'm from) since I was a teenager if work policy allows it (or more correctly if no-one has yet told me it doesn't), they are comfortable, practical, hard wearing and I'm a programmer - what I wear should be like 207th on the list of things they should be worrying about.
As for brand, I visit the local workwear place and buy whatever they have in my size (usually dickies or similar) and move on - clothes made as actual workwear tend to be tougher and better made than 'fashion' knock-offs of working gear.
Disagree that this is a reinvention of cargo pants. IMO it's just borrowing a tighter version of the pocket. The pocket isn't even the same given that cargo pants pockets are patch pockets instead of internal pockets.
Agreed. He designed something that, by comparison to cargo pants, trades a little usefulness for a little bit more of a certain kind of fashion. Sometimes that's what design is: re-evaluating an existing solution to address a different set of requirements, and making small changes. Absolutely nothing wrong with that.
The following is not exactly relevant to the article, but it gives me a chance to add the most useful quote I know about fashion design:
>When cuffs disappeared from men’s trousers, fashion designers gave interviews explaining that the cuff was archaic and ill-suited to contemporary living. It collected dust, contributed nothing. When the trouser cuff returned, did it collect less dust and begin at last to make a contribution? Probably no fashion designer would argue the point; but the question never came up. Designers got rid of the cuff because there aren’t many options for making trousers different. They restored it for the same reason. (Ralph Caplan)
I ain't seeing that rant about cargo pants in the article:
> Appendix: Sam, have you simply invented cargo pants?
> No. Cargo pants solve different problems for different people.
> If cargo pants are appropriate for your daily life, you definitely don’t
want or need my side-seam welt pockets; and vice-versa. Cargo pants
aren’t office-wear; these dress pants aren’t combat-wear.
One problem with pockets down the side is if you forget to zip or bottom them, things can fall out, of you don’t design them with a trapping mechanism, but those mechanisms can make it hard to pull things out if you’re sitting, so if you will be retrieving things while seated (school), the a lower position of the pockets where they don’t need a flap trap can be better.
Those pockets are quite ugly though. The huge flap, the gaping phone slit. The advantage of the ones in the original article is they are pretty invisible.
Cargo pants are not the only pants with side pockets. I suggest that you take a look at hiking pants.
Hiking clothing is my preferred kind, even if I am not hiking. Here are some arguments:
- They tend to look neutral. Not flashy like other kind of sportswear, and not as obvious as cargo pants.
- They are comfortable, reasonably durable, and low maintenance. They are made for hiking after all.
- They tend to have plenty of pockets, including ones in the location recommended by the article.
- Zippers on pockets are common. Makes them safer. They usually have some sort of water resistance too.
- Speaking of water resistance, it is another great feature of hiking pants, they often have a hydrophobic coating (that doesn't always last unfortunately) and are designed to dry quickly. Rain doesn't only happen during hikes.
Of course, their neutral style is a negative if you want to make a fashion statement, but in a casual setting, if you don't care and don't want others to care, this is perfect.
I have one of these. They pocket is pretty good, but it is definitely a two-handed affair To use the zipper and you can feel your phone swing while it is on there. Also definitely bulgy. Helpful in certain contexts like traveling or of course hiking, but doesn’t fulfilL the requirements listed in the post.
I love hiking pants! But as a woman, my hiking pants pockets are not large enough to hold my (large) phone, making the zipper useless. I'm actually trying to remember if I have any pants pockets that fully encapsulate my phone and nothing is coming to mind. I usually work on the principle that if my pocket holds at least 50% of my phone, my phone probably won't fall out. Unfortunately this doesn't work for hiking over rough terrain.
Newer gen of military pants also have sensible and tested pocket placements. Front pockets are under-rated imo And spending more time out in due to covid, the knee pads are functional. Also surprisingly good fit if you can pull off tacticool. Some cool scandinavian work pants as well. Just need proper civilian patterns.
Yeah I have front cargo pockets on my ski trousers. They’re a great placement for regular access when wearing a pack and double as a handy place to put stuff when working in snow.
+1, I have them in shorts and pants, easily the most comfortable pair of shorts/pants I've ever worn. I literally never wear jeans any more not for style reasons, but because they are so uncomfortable.
Y'all are a little touchy about someone criticizing your cargo pants! Consider that perhaps his criticism hits a nerve because there is an element of truth in it - for most people (myself included as a younger person), the symbolism of cargo pants is as important as the function.
Have you performed a survey? My intuition, from my own experience, is that most people are completely ignorant of the symbolism of cargo pants and use them solely for the cargo feature.
These pants look fine. When I think of cargo pants, I think of ridiculously large pockets that really only work in the context of the baggy style of the late 90s/early 00s. It's not my favorite look (though it was when I was a kid), but you can make it work on some level. Anyway, when most people are criticizing cargo pants, I believe they have the jumbo pockets in mind. Another poster correctly noted that they ruin a silhouette. The pants you linked don't have this issue as far as I can tell.
Note, this is just my impression. Maybe there are people out there who just really hate extra pockets.
I never knew cargo pants had a symbolism. I love pockets. I carry as much as I can in my pockets so that I don't need to carry a backpack. I was slightly disappointed with the article because I find the pocket they created seems even smaller than the front pocket, so I don't get how they improve anything.
Fair enough. My point was that I don't think that's such a big reason for people to wear cargo pants, as I've wore and seen people wearing it, yet that was never communicated to me. It's anecdotal, I agree.
This is like saying "stop making everything political." It's not even possible.
Everything is a statement, the lack of intention can be doubly so. There are entire utilitarian schools of thought in fashion just like there is in everything else.
Also fashion doesn't exist solely to please others! I wouldn't dismiss an entire massive industry as inane. Vanity is a big part of it like a lot of other things, but if you're making a conscious choice in what you wear... fashion is playing some small role.
Everything can be analysed from a political, fashion or symbolic aspect. However, that analysis is not always insightful or even relevant sometimes. For instance, Lorenz transformation applies to every body in motion, however it's the wrong tool to describe most of the movement we encounter on Earth.
This is a cool exercise, but there's a broken assumption. Or an assumption of no outwear I missed:
> Where is there enough support to prevent items swinging around uncomfortably?
He answered this with a box basically around the thighs, but I'd also add the torso and maybe even the upper arms.
A personal bugbear of mine is jackets without internal breast pockets. When you have one on each side of a jacket that isn't ultra lightweight, it fits a wallet and phone perfectly, it's super accessible, and it doesn't change the appearance. In San Francisco where you never really need to zip/button up your jacket, it's perfect. This is the hill I will die on.
I think it can be quite hard to make a jacket which won’t sag too much or have a weird weight distribution with things in the breast pocket. And you may get a visible lump depending on the size of the item and fit of the jacket (again large flat phones against a not-flat chest doesn’t help, and neither does the trend for clothing to fit quite tightly).
That said, I agree with you that internal pockets in jackets are great (though obviously it can be harder to access the contents once you have taken the jacket off).
I do also have a jacket with a pocket on the upper sleeve. It’s tiny and weird and basically useless and I’m not really sure what it’s for (credit card? Tiny MP3 player? If it were a skiing jacket then I might guess it was for a lift pass but it’s definitely not a skiing jacket and it’s a weird manoeuvre to try to get your upper arm to a reader at waist height) though sometimes I will put my keys there because their lumpy shape makes them uncomfortable in pockets closer to the skin and I rarely need to access them
External breast pockets work okay for this, too, provided they're big enough and have some kind of flap (with a button or velcro or zipper) to keep it closed. Such pockets are especially handy on shirts.
I like the idea of rethinking an everyday item to make it more usable, while also attending to aesthetics. A lot of technologies could be improved by just writing down a list of "What's this thing really supposed to do?" And then, iterating on that list as the design evolves.
In the case of this article, I have three more feature requests:
1. The pocket should be narrow enough so the phone can't rotate sideways while it's in there. That's my biggest complaint about cargo or hiking pants, which is what I typically wear.
2. Pay attention to how the phone behaves while riding a bike. I don't want pants that require me to find a special place for my phone while I'm out and active. But the author's designs look like they stand a real chance.
3. The pocket should be slightly "hooked" on the inside, so my phone doesn't slide out during my nap. I owe two broken phone screens to this phenomenon.
For 3, I'm a fan of small, discreet zippers. My Bluffworks pants have zippers that are discreet enough to be unnoticeable but sturdy enough for roller coasters.
You seem kind of touchy on the 'cargo pocket' subject, which is the first thing that came to mind for me. Glad you found something that works for you.
Google 'dockers cell phone pocket'. You can already get shorts and pants with a cell phone pocket on the side. Some very similar to yours, some zippered, some a little closer to the hip, some a little lower.
I guess I should re-write that postscript, given how much attention it's receiving. I have nothing against cargo pants! My point was just that they're solving very different problems for different people, and are stuck in a different kind of innovation-rut.
IMHO, what you propose and cargo pants have only in common that they're pants with pockets, nothing else. So the last paragraph is warranted, even if it seems that some here feel personally attacked by it... The whole point is how the pockets are integrated into the pants, and that's completely different solution than cargo pants.
Anyway, seems neat! I had some work shorts on a summer job years ago, funnily they were mostly like cargo pants, but they had an additional pocked very similar to your proposed one. It could be used for a folding meter stick (or whatever it's called in English) and that pocket alone made the shorts perfect. It allowed easy storage and access to a frequently used tool which was almost unwieldy long.
Haha, no, no sales. Making clothes to fit one specific person is an relatively easy task. Making clothes to fit distant internet strangers is much, much harder; and wouldn't pay as well as making software, anyway.
Even the US startups that are making clothes to customized measurements, etc, are forced to stay price-competitive by using the same overseas factories that (in addition to the specific kinds of inflexibility I bring up in the post) are often labor rights disasters, which is part of why I make my own clothes in the first place.
If I had a clear plan of attack against fast fashion, I'd probably take it, but the best I have right now is individual action.
My experience with a couple of the docker pockets is that my phone falls out when I sit or lay down. Most chairs have the knees slightly higher than the bottom and those pockets end up with the opening pointing slightly down and the contents come out.
Docker has had khakis with a zippered pocket concealed in the seam for something like 15 years. They used to call it some nerdy name that I can’t seem to recall, but they’ve been there.
I had a couple pair stashed away hoping I’d lose weight but when I did I suddenly remembered I don’t wear khakis or slacks anymore, so why am I keeping these?
But a pocket that low on the thigh could take a hit, and I’m not sure these days when I’m more active if that’s a great idea.
Years before the DIY/maker movement started up, I saw a howto where someone slit the pocket in their jeans and sewed a second pocket over it, so that you had a double pocket. I know someone who owns a serger and I have made noises several times about getting some pants altered but we never manage to connect on that.
It’ll all be moot anyway in a few years if they keep making phones bigger. We will all be carrying purses for our phones.
Most of those pockets, notice, are in the side seam itself -- allowing them to be made without changing the order of construction, but requiring a zipper to keep things from falling out.
I realize that within-the-seam vs, welt pocket is externally a small thing, but it changes the order of construction dramatically. My approach doesn't need a zipper to prevent things falling out, but does need a reordering of the construction process, and so is much rarer to see for exactly the reasons I enumerate in the post, even in spite of being potentially materially cheaper.
Yes, coincidence of reinventing the wheel. They reinvented cargo pants with pockets going inside instead outside. The purpose of the two is exactly the same: storing things. I don't care who invented cargo pants and who started wearing them first. I'm neither a pilot nor a soldier, nor am I pretending to be one, but I find them super convenient.
The whole point of the article is the placement and design of pockets.
Saying, "Oh, its just all some pants with pockets and thus it's all the same reinvention" doesn't help anybody - it's like saying to one which proposes a better roofing system that a shed and a house have both a roof already, so why bother making it better for one of those. Er what?
Sorry, you are conflating two things: placement and design. OP hasn't changed the placement of the cargo pants pockets. For me as a proverbial user, the interface didn't change. The implementation details did. Don't get me wrong, I like the approach OP took, but this is basically an iteration on cargo pants design, by making them more socially acceptable.
It's only an iteration on cargo pants if they started from cargo pants. If they started from dress pants, then it's an iteration on dress pants.
The fact that it might be only a few steps away from cargo pants is irrelevant - it's also only a few steps away from most other pant designs.
I'm a bit worried about pickpockets though with the pockets so low. Right now if I'm worried about them (I live in Barcelona where they are a major pest!) I put my hands in my pockets. That won't work if they're so far down.
However I do love rethinking common things we take for granted, especially about clothing. For one I don't understand how the common business suit is so popular. It looks really old-fashioned (has hardly changed design over the years), has all sorts of non-functional appendages like those flaps on the jackets, collars, cuffs, ties, nonfunctional pockets, buttons you're not supposed to use etc. They're super uncomfortable, restrictive and sweaty. And they're really generic, everyone from a store manager to a president wears them. And for what? Everyone in business wears them so they're not proving anything.. It's almost like a uniform. Humanity shouldn't be that shallow :) Uniforms are about stripping a person of their identity whereas business and politics is all about being more distinctive than others. I really don't get why this is such a thing :)
They're a both a weird thing and a status symbol, because once you pay enough, they're actually really comfortable. I've got a tailored suit which is amazing to wear and not restrictive. Will most people get that experience? No :( It would be better if we used something that can be better quality on a budget.
But at least I can have fun with them.. "buttons you're not supposed to use" is basically an old meme. Button them up if you like and tell people that's the current style. See how many can you convert. That's all it is really. Or wear fun colour suits. There are options if you can afford the game.
If you get properly fitted suit pants, they're actually quite comfortable, and in the right materials (generally wool), they're also a lot less warm than you'd think. And the jacket can be sewn to have decent freedom of movement, obviously not to gynmast type movements, but certainly not uncomfortably restricting.
I still think the standard suit looks silly, but when well-made, it is actually designed to be worn comfortably for a whole workday.
Pockets on dress pants are placed right below the waistband not because someone thought that's the most convenient place for pocket access, but because it conceals them (there, they are hidden under a jacket. Or were, since no one wears a jacket and tie anymore). They're actually there because, indirectly, it's a LESS convenient place to put them.
They're also sewn in line with the outside seam, again to help conceal them.
Pockets are not a feature to showcase on dress pants, and in most cases take away from the formality of the garment.
He’s reinvented the knife pocket in carpenter jeans. There’s also usually a loop nearby for hanging a hammer so you don’t have to walk around with your tool bags.
Particularly when climbing ladders. Anyone who’s ever gone up a ladder and felt like they needed a third hand for carrying crap has experienced why the hammer loop exists. Plus securing it when you’re up there so your dumb ass doesn’t knock it on someone’s head :-)
Pretty much but I should point out that you can’t easily find carpenter pants anymore. And I view the gamer loop as about as useful as the coin pocket: purely decorative in nature.
I carry a filled Zippo everywhere I go (although I don't smoke - it's for lighting others' cigarettes). It fits perfectly in the coin pocket on a pair of raw Japanese jeans, where it will produce a fade[0] unique to the lighter and its wearer.
Before covid-19, pretty frequently. For instance, I once noticed that the end of my shoelace broke off. If you want to prevent continued fraying, you can use a lighter to melt the end of the lace. Besides that it's a well-designed, classic looking, functional tool that I enjoy handling.
I live in New York, where smoking is more common, and I've found an abundance of social situations that become available when a stranger needs a light.
I've found some coin pockets to be the right size and shape to securely carry a single ID or credit card or hotel room key in times where you don't need or want to carry a full wallet. I've seen coin pockets rebranded "golf pockets" for similar reason that golfers find them useful for scorecards and maybe a pencil.
What medication are you able to fit in a coin pocket? Everything I've ever taken is either bottled, in a large blister pack, or I need more than I could reasonably fit inside that tiny pocket
Carhartt makes pants with a "cell-phone" pocket that approximates the author's design. They're great -- they've become a stalwart in my rotation. Durability is mixed, but I'm in love with the pocket.
It is quite impressive, and slightly unreal, the variety of articles which get HN readers worked up.
But, truth be told, I enjoy these threads where I absolutely have no opinion and can look, sometimes in amusement but mostly in wonderment, at all sides of the debates.
Those pockets look exactly like the pockets on kühl (https://www.kuhl.com/kuhl/mens/pants/) pants and those pants come in all sorts of shapes and sizes not just cargo pants. I can attest to the fact that they are very practical for using for modern smartphones which have definetly become to large for front pockets.
Kuhl pants are some of my favorite pants I own, second only to my Prana pants which also have similar pockets.
I recently discovered that "hiking pants" are superior in almost every way to normal pants. They're usually more comfortable, deal with both high and low temperatures well, and nowadays have aesthetic styles that you can even wear in semi-formal work situations or to a nice dinner.
I bought some kuhl pants and the damn rivets that they put on the butt pockets were not only uncomfortable to sit on but have left unsightly gouges on all my dining chairs. I stopped using those pants once I realized where the gouges came from. All that in the the make of making a pant that looks rugged (I don't think the rivets really improved the pants structurally)
Interesting! The Kuhl pants I own don't have any rivets in them at all (in fact there's no metal or anything non-fabric except for the crotch zipper and button) so I have not experienced that. Will have to keep that in mind if I look at any of the other styles from them, though.
I cannot even begin how much I love cargo trousers.
Ever since I have started earning, I buy as many cargos as I can buy. During college, I used to buy from factory sale.
Always rummaging through all leading websites like Myntra, Amazon, Flipkart, et al for a good deal on cargos, almost on a daily basis. I buy one at least on a monthly basis. If I don't like it, I just return and get my money back.
Today morning itself I bought an H&M cargos from their website's 50% sale.
I am quite parsimonious too, so buy only those which are offered at 50 - 70% discount and that too from big brands like USPA, H&M, et al.
Recently, I have taken a lot of fondness for H&M cargos. I am a person who needs at least 5.5" - 6.1" iPhone (since I read a lot on it) and protect my iPhone with Otterbox Defender/ Griffin Survivor cases. Love the rugged look which the protective cases lend akin to top-secret military/ CIA satellite spy phone.
Ipso facto, I need cargos to carry my iPhone around.
I wear cargos to work daily as well. Have started researching the availability of formal cargo trousers. Very soon I would be moving to Canada and then to the USA, not sure how much acceptable is cargos in the workplace there.
Very soon, once I am well disposed of, I plan to design and stitch my own cargos, particularly formal ones. Would be drawing a lot of inspiration from USPA and H&M cargos, and would be researching on a tough, thick, stretchable fabric as well.
They're good pockets, aren't they? But the ones I've owned seem to be sized and proportioned for a stanley knife or similar, not a phone or wallet.
I think the author is onto something, though I'm still not convinced these pockets give a nice line with much in them, which people generally care about. Dickies-type trousers tend to have a looser fit than the pictured trousers. The article photos with a phone held partly in the pocket aren't definitive.
I suppose I didn't include photos with the phone fully in the pocket because you genuinely can't tell it's there.
There's a slight bulge from the welt of the pocket itself, which I'm still experimenting with, but with-phone is truly indistinguishable from without-phone when I'm standing up. Seated, there's a bulge at the side of the thigh if you really look for it.
For pockets to look good with items in them, they need to be big. For pants to look good when the pockets are big, the articles themselves need to be designed to be worn big. Most modern clothing is designed to hug the body and constrain movement, not enable movement. Hence most pants look bad with objects in their pockets.
I know of a few brands that buck this trend, but they're basically constrained to wealthy aestheticians.
This kind of pocket in the article appeals to me and were I in search of new pants I would certainly consider them.
I used to tell my wife that one of the primary considerations I make when looking for pants is that they have usable pockets: not too big, not too small. Mostly, this is doable for me. However, when we started shopping for her I would joke about the female fashion conspiracy to sell more accessories: they don't put in pockets in women's clothes so they can sell clutches, purses and other stuff. All that aside I think it's just figuring out what works for you and there's more than one way to handle personal storage needs.
I have a similar pair from Duluth Trading[1], but what kills me is having the 'extra' pocket on only one side - I am sure that works perfectly for some, but for me, I very much want my phone on my left leg, it's like trying to unlearn a common key combo to have to look for it on the right.
Hmm, interesting (though apparently being closed out). To me that looks like a narrower pocket (they have a photo showing a boxcutter being put in it, I doubt a smartphone could be crammed in). It's also not 'stealth' in terms of looks, since the pocket is appliqued on the outside of the leg, instead of hidden inside.
I hadn't even really thought about it, but I've had pockets like this for a few years in pants from Patagonia and Black Diamond. They are indeed quite nice, exactly as the author describes. Best for a phone or slender wallet.
You've invented carpenter jeans, from the late 90s. If you want to buy a modern equivalent, the Prana Bronson jeans are exactly this. Bonus points, they come in shorts with the same Pixel XL sized pockets.
When I’m not wearing comfy “tech pants” with extra internal pockets (Prana, REI, and so on) I’ve been wearing a lot of blazers. Extra pockets that, blessedly, aren’t in my pants; dresses you up but not so much that people in my hickish ‘burbs are put off, rather than dressing you down like a hoodie. Appropriate in almost all weather, if you’ve got the right kinds of cloth and weight. Love ‘em.
This is cool. Living in South Africa where the crime rate is ultra-high, the first thing that occurred to me was that this pocket design looks like it might be easier to pick-pocket while standing?
When I worked at my first job my mentor, the lead sysadmin, had a vest that his mother in law had made for him.
It had a ton of pockets of all different sizes, including one large one for his Newton. He always had enough pockets and could reach everything standing or sitting, and even while driving.
He was all about efficiency. He also had shoes that you could clip wheels to and turn them into roller blades, so he could snap those on and be at the datacenter in seconds, as long as no one was in the hall. :)
>'Wylie started work as a fashion trend forecaster, before switching roles to help the Liberal Democrats update their voter targeting. He saw the potential for harvesting Facebook data to help build psychological profiles of its users, which could in turn be used to target them with political ads. It was an idea that, in 2013, got him hired at the SCL Group — the parent company of Cambridge Analytica.
...Fashion and music, Wylie says, are among the best predictors of political orientation. And as such, they have the potential to help shift the political conversation. The following is an edited and abridged transcript of a conversation he had with Imran Amed, the BoF founder, and the FT to explain how fashion is in the perfect position to make the world a better place.'
> Things, especially phone, need to go in and out of storage frequently, almost unconsciously.
Maybe if Facebook or Google were designing pants to maximize user engagement, that’d be the case. But I’d say good UX means that taking your phone out should be a conscious decision, not a compulsive habit.
I like the idea though. The design looks nice and it’s nice that someone’s thinking about this, because we seem to be in a path towards tight pants and giant phones.
This is a great overview and history of a sadly under appreciated problem. Well, actually a huge number of people suffer so they appreciate the problem but it is poorly discussed.
My only objection is so something in the coda:
> Cargo pants aren’t office-wear
I have been in the workforce for almost 40 years and have never worked somewhere where anyone would bat an eye at cargo pants.
I agree with the baseline principles, but these pockets are at the edge of reach, which is far from convenient. I was sure they would end up with a waist level pocket, in a stretchy material, on top of the belt area.
There are a quite a few of these running belts, none of which have solved the style problem to my taste unfortunately. I was researching these extensively for running last week, so without endorsing any specifically, here are some names I've heard a lot in running and hiking communities online in case it helps anyone looking at options:
I like the pocket design. No need to attack other people's choices though regarding cargo pants and shirts. I have some arcteryx and outlier pants that change up the pocket design just enough to be great.
I really appreciate the design and thought that went into these pants. Goes to show what is possible when you can craft your own clothes and break free of the constraints of mass produced clothes.
Would have been cool to see the pants in a wool plaid or suiting material to emphasize their dressiness. I think people are getting cargo pants vibe because of the dark green twill.
Only for the most broad definition of cargo pants.
Cargo pants are a style that emphasizes the size and bulk of the pockets to telegraph maximum utility. That is definitely not the case here. These seemed to be intended to provide a balance of utility with only minimal bulk.
I have had various pants over the last 15 years or so with variations of this pocket. When wearing them I keep my phone there and it is a relief. This avoids the pressure and breaking risk of the upper pockets and it avoids the unnecessary flopping around from a cargo pocket.
It was a bit tongue in cheek but the actual gist of my comment was (as demonstrated by the deluge of suggestions, especially hicker's and carpenter's styles) is that there was not enough investigation for prior art unless the whole piece was an attempt to get HN to provide it.
And the problem with putting cargo in your cargo pants is that it swings when you walk. I have aome great Kuhl pants with similar pocket design, but it's awkward to walk with my phone there.
I could perhaps get used to it, especially if they fit a bit tighter as his seem to.
I have what over here in .uk tend to be referred to as "combat trousers", where the side pockets are reasonably spacious (I can fit a 7" tablet in one, though it then doesn't close and I can't get anything else in there) but not sufficiently so that they swing.
The only annoying thing is finding ones where everything including the hip pocket linings are made of the same heavy material, there are too many where that lining is normal smart trouser pocket material and tear through long before the rest of the trousers are showing noticeable wear.
How "bad" they look is part of the aesthetic of cargo pants. Wearing them is in part a deliberate declaration that you do not care about the aesthetic considerations.
Purposely adopting cargo pants requires a rejection of the primacy of common, mainstream aesthetic culture in clothing decision-making for any of a variety of reasons. Examples include, but are in no way limited to, functional reasons and personal aesthetics.
Thank you for this opportunity to clarify my thoughts.
> So I made a pair of trousers with no pockets at the waist, and a pair of welt pockets at the side seams, right at that point.
Weirdly, the pictures pants are not slim jeans, thought that was the motivating problem. They look like not particularly slim khakis.
The pocket location is also quite similar to the low-profile cargo pocket location on some of the 5.11 Tactical pants that are designed for unobtrusive utility, addressing a somewhat similar problem space (useful pockets in relatively slim pants.) So, I'm not sure there is really an innovative solution here
But, like most middle-to-upper class fashion for centuries, the driving force between the popularity of skinny jeans is the ostentatious sacrifice of utility because the need for useful clothing is a marker of proletarian status. And the signalling is as much to the wearer as outside observers, so I'm not sure there's going to be a mass market demand for this.
I applaud new thinking, but his proposed solution doesn't even meet his proposed criteria.
> Aesthetically, we want a clean, graceful line from hip to ankle even while holding things.
How are side bulges above the knee clean and graceful?
> Where is there enough support to prevent items swinging around uncomfortably?
Because pants are looser around the knee than the waist, heavy items like a phone will constantly be swinging around uncomfortably down there -- same as they do in cargo pants.
As for the problem that started it all:
> Putting a modern slab phone, a wallet, and keys into a pair of skinny jeans will leave even the most fashionable figure looking looking like they’re wearing batman’s utility belt as underwear.
A little bit, yes, but it's really just the least bad solution. Everything else is even worse. The market has settled on pockets as they are, because they actually truly work best.
I solemnly swear I've experienced no swinging or banging. These pants are fitted at the thigh, and the pocket bag is inside the pant leg. I genuinely forget my phone is there, even on long walks.
And there's no bulge at the knee because trousers don't fit tightly at the knee -- otherwise, you would't be able to sit down. The fit at the top of the pocket prevents swing, and the ease at the bottom prevents bulge.
> Because pants are looser around the knee than the waist, heavy items like a phone will constantly be swinging around uncomfortably down there -- same as they do in cargo pants.
You can have a "pocket-in-pocket" to avoid that problem. My Lululemon trousers [1] have that where I can fit an iPhone 8 so it stays put (I don't store my iPhone as the "double-pocket" in the pictures, it is rather a hidden pocket inside the pocket on the right hand side)
I like the idea but why only show photographs from one angle? This is a clothing item, give us more pictures so we can see it from all sides and judge its aesthetics.
I would buy these pants in a heartbeat. I'm fairly slender, like tight fitting pants, but hate the hip pockets. Cargo pants are baggy and everything rattles around in the large pockets. These are a really thoughtful middleground where you don't have to sacrifice style for utility.
I just checked, I already own a pair like this. The pocket is horizontal, not slanted, and the pants are dark grey slacks. The pocket is only on the right side. It fits a smaller sized cell phone or a money clip. They were bought at a thrift store for maybe $10, so I've no idea on retail prices. I can't say I ever use that pocket, but more than a handful of times maybe. When I put my keys in there, they bang against my knee and make a weird bulge when I sit down and cross my legs. Fit is super important here. Either that or very lightweight and small objects. I'd rather just have deeper 'normal' side pockets.
Very cool! I’ve gotten into pants-making over quarantine, I’ll have to try this out. I had never considered pockets like this before (that I remember), but when I read the title my first idea was the article’s implementation
Go for it! The main construction trick here is remembering that to put a welt pocket on the outseam means you need open access -- so you close the inseam last, opposite the usual order of things.
If you don't already sew, I'd start by making a pillowcase or a dice bag, and then maybe a shirt or something. Take some time to learn about fabric materials and weaves. Pants are notoriously hard to fit, and if you're also learning to use a sewing machine at the same time, it's gonna end in tears. Or even tears.
Youtube is chock-full of "learn to sew" videos, and you can buy paper patterns online, or in person (and get helpful advice) at your local fabric store.
The instructions that come with such patterns are bad, but still better than the average readme.
Then when you've got a feel for it, you can start drafting your own patterns. Much of the information that's available on that is for womenswear, but it doesn't take too much thought to translate things.
It depends on what level you're starting from. During non-COVID times, a reasonable path was to buy a sewing machine from a local shop and part of that transaction would be a short class to help you understand and use your machine. Nowadays, that may be difficult, but depending on your timeline that may be an option in the future. On a similar lines, a good fraction sewing machine shops and fabric stores offer classes, which can also be incredibly helpful. Generally, the progression is something like intro to sewing and then intro to garment sewing.
If you've never done garment sewing before, an apron is a good first project. It'll get you used to your machine and how to sew some simple hems and run a draw string. It's also something that's usable, which is nice. After that, pajama pants are a reasonable starting point to the world of pants. Really, any simple pattern should be fine, so something similar to this:
The key point on pajama or lounge pants is that they don't contain pockets or a fly. However, they do give practice on how to sew all of the fabric together on the crotch, which can be tricky to start. To add a fly, you'll have to learn how to sew a placket as well as how to either sew buttons and button holes or a zipper. Again, neither is particularly difficult, but they do require practice and there a lot of tricks to make it easier, which is partly why a beginning sewing class is nice. To add pockets, it depends on how nice you'd like it to look. Patch pockets have their own set of technique and how to interface, but are the mostly straight forward. You can substitute rear patch pockets with welted pockets and there are good online tutorials for those. As far as the front, I'll contend that slash pockets are easier than a j-style pocket that jeans typically have. Basically, the more complicated the pocket, they more pieces and interfacing that's required and it can be a pain.
If you really want to go the online route, Thread Theory has reasonable patterns that can be downloaded:
As far as traditional pattern makers, stuff from Simplicity is pretty simple, but stuff from places like Vogue is a pain.
Ok. That was an overload. Bottom line: (1) Get a machine (2) make an apron (3) get a pattern for pajama pants (4) slowly add features to your pajama pants until you want to make nice pants (5) get a pattern for nice pants (6) classes help a lot. Iterate on that as long as you're having fun.
Forgive me if I am wrong or ignorant, but wouldn’t this design be very weak since all the weight of the items in the pocket falls onto one seam? Most pants anchor the pocket bag to the waist, which is much more durable.
I've lost around 20kg 2 years ago and were able to fit into a nice pair of slim jeans I used to wear in high school (around mid 00's). I've always carried my wallet in a left hand pocket and my phone+headphones in a right hand pocket. I couldn't fit any modern smartphone into the right hand pocket - the pocket was too short and your phone sticked out of the pocket all the time.
Kinda interesting, how the spread of modern computer devices changed a little detail in mass market fashion design.
Mountain Hardware, Mission Workshop, Lululemon, Outlier and Arcteryx all have some variety on this theme. I love the lightweight zip low-hip pocket as there's no jostling when running and your phone/wallet lays to the side if you're sitting.
It's true that there is space for innovation, but it's difficult to get below the $100-200 range for 'technical' (ie non-traditional cut) officewear.
At various points, thinking about what I wear to events where well-worn skinny pants are advantageous, I've thought about hip-pouches as a solution to the pocket problem. I've generally found that this runs into an inevitable quandrary:
- To carry my wallet+phone+keys, it will need to be reasonably sized
- To be trusted with my wallet+phone+keys, it will need to be durable- built out of leather, or at least something like heavy canvas
- It can't be brightly colored or otherwise goofy, because aesthetics
- If you're wearing something on your hip that is dark-colored, made of heavy-duty material, and is roughly holster-sized, it will generally look like a gun holster to casual or distant inspection. That's not only a bad fashion statement, that's plausibly dangerous in some circumstances.
A pouch mounted right above the knee might solve this (I don't think anyone wears their pistol there?) if there's a decent way to wear a pouch that's not hung from the belt.
I'd be curious to know how other people are handling this problem without employing cargo pants or custom clothing like this. I'm a guy who likes wearing skinny jeans and agree that stuffing a wallet, too many security keys, a knife, and a huge phone into the pockets kind of distorts the aesthetic. Do other guys / girls just carry their stuff in backpacks?
You never noticed that lots of people have purses? They are designed to solve exactly this problem :) Jeans designed for women tend to have smaller pockets and of course a legging or a skirt or dress doesn’t have pockets at all. The big downside with purses is that they require your hands and you can forget them on a train, unlike your pockets.
I imagine that’s why in urban areas the small corded Gucci/Louis Vuitton purses have become very popular with men and women alike, as they overcome some of the practical downsides, they’re more like fanny packs in the sense that they leave your hands free and stay close to your body. The fanny pack itself has made something of a comeback too, although now you wear them slung over a shoulder instead of around your hip.
I should have read the article, it actually explains how pockets used to be separate garments, worn over or under clothing. It looks like this approach has come back in fashion. Programmers can appreciate the modularity!
Jackets. Hoodies seem to be popular, and come in various weights. Blazers can fit typical “everyday carry” stuff without losing fit (though larger phones or really thick wallets might be a challenge, if you don’t ant them to be noticeable) and come in styles/weights/fabrics appropriate for all but the very hottest or very coldest weather.
Jackets are purses for men. Love them. Hate keeping stuff in my pants pockets.
I wonder how pickpocket-safe they are because the lower placement would allow someone to reach my pockets without entering my field of view. I mean back pockets and the side pockets of cargo pants also aren't safe, but those trousers usually have the regular side pockets as a safe alternative for phone & money.
I would add one item to the list of requirements: as I walk around and engage in other movements, objects should not flop around uncomfortably or jiggle around and make noise more than necessary.
That is a big advantage of locating pockets near the hips. First of all, as you walk your hips stay in a relatively fixed position, whereas your knees move back and forth a lot. So items nearer the knees are swung back and forth a lot more. Also, close to the waist where the cloth fits more tightly. Looser cloth closer to the knee tends to swing back and forth because there is more slack which allows it to do so.
Unfortunately, I don't know way to solve this and solve the problems that they have solved like accessibility when you're sitting down. Maybe you could stick pockets near the hip but on the side of the body instead of front or back. But those pockets would have to bend a whole lot.
Perhaps a hidden, floating, spandex style layer that encapsulates the pocket and contents against the leg would solve that issue? This could be done while minimizing impact to the outer appearance.
I wear the kind of slim-fit trousers that this article shows at the end. I like this improved pocket idea; it's functional and elegant. (Although for non-black trousers, I wonder about the discreetness of it.)
My 'workaround' when I'm on the bicycle -- which is everyday -- for phone has been this (rather expensive, but robust) every day carry-on backpack with a hidden-but-accessible phone pocket:
Alas, OP, you say "no sales" ... perhaps I should start taking sewing classes, which reminds me, there's a hacker space (the only one in town) near me that also gives sewing workshops. Once the world fully reopens.
Nobody would miss the pockets on top for a place to hang your hands? I depend on this to take some load off my spine sometimes. And I feel like pocketing away my hands is like a “mute button” on a certain amount of proprioception when I need to really do some thinking or relaxing.
That's a interesting and real use case for upper pockets. I can attest doing so the same for both ergonomic and psychological reasons. Plus, there is one reason pockets in lower part of the torso is not very common, it is because the larger leg movements range make the weight in the lower pocket a painful experience in walking and running. The OP design therefore is not very practical IMHO.
Love this. Would be great to see these in stores. An unfortunate thing about the apparel industry (which I think contributes to how outdated clothing styles have been) is that it's all about the marketing budget and distribution channels. Things like getting your brand onto racks in stores and massive online ad campaigns become the key things to your business. That doesn't really encourage much innovation on product, it's securing the channel that really matters. A large brand's marketing budget can simply just eclipse yours to do better in sales. As you become bigger, all the attention simply shifts to supply chain, distribution, and increasing sales. All optimization problems, almost doesn't matter what you make.
Regarding the limitations of the fashion industry...
Learning to sew clothes is like learning to cook after eating fast food all your life and not even knowing it was possible to combine ingredients in any way you wanted.
The possibilities are endless, empowering, overwhelming, and terrifying.
These kinds of lower, often-slanted-up-and-back pockets are somewhat common in exercise wear. And they're great for the most part. Though your legs move a lot, they don't often move in a just-vertical up and down path, so as long as you have horizontal stability (very easy here as your leg curves) nothing really jostles.
They do have a nasty habit of losing their contents while driving (knees often higher than waist), or sitting cross-legged. Buttons / zippers / etc combat this of course (magnetic closures are my favorite), but they are also a bit more visible and sometimes uncomfortable :)
You should checkout running tights, pants and shorts. Nearly all brands are implementing this kind of different pockets and zippers. Both women and men design differs for their anatomy as well.
No, because Apple wants to sell us something else than a phone. They want to sell us a vending machine for entertainment. Probably it's the same for the other phone companies.
Actual phones are going out of fashion quite quickly. People want communication devices with several usage options, that once in a full moon work as phones too.
And yes, people want entertainment too. Apple is just submitting to their customers desires.
TFA notes that people take their phones out of pockets. I believe the real reason for that is phones are now so large that they are uncomfortable to have in any pocket while sitting.
I’ve got a pair of pants from REI that have a pocket down there, and I instinctively put my phone there all the time, because of how accessible it is when sitting. It’s great!
Agreed to lack of innovation and creativeness in this world of mass production. Even women receive a great level of innovation with changes in sizes and some fundamental changes but for men, it's the same 3 pieces of clothes which are important (because that's what is available) - jeans, shirts, tees.
Pockets is a good way to start but this definitely needs to expanded to the fundamental core.
I got them for taking my son on hikes, but liked them so much I got more and started wearing them to work too. I don’t even use the standard pockets anymore, just the thigh pockets for the reasons described in the article.
Chest is a good place for pockets. Like the breast pocket on a tshirt. Or the multipocket on overalls.
Back pocket is fantastic as long as you don't sit down. And to take that to the next level, a finish carpenter's toolbelt. A back pocket big enough to fit a cantaloupe. With partitions. And you can slide the whole thing around to various places on your butt and hips as the situation requires.
Propper's STL pant series take a similar tact for their cargo pockets. It's definitely a massive improvement in terms of business-casual looking workwear that doesn't sacrifice utility.
I hope pockets like these do take off. I know too many women who've lamented the fact that they have few options for practical pants that don't also trade out the style of tighter-fitting women's wear.
Alternatively, more pockets on tops. Fall/winter has much more carrying flexibly: anorak with stomach pocket, winter jackets with chest pockets.
Also I find it ironic women's work out tights have phone side pockets already figured out but men's are still limited to a key pouch on the back. Also very functional mesh panels but I suppose that's to close to mesh shirts for most dudes.
It's funny, I actually had a pair of something similar in the '90s.
I had a pair of charcoal grey men's pants of some unknown heavier fabric that were cut slim instead of baggy like cargo pants or work pants, and had a pair of discrete flap pockets instead of bulky cargo pockets on them. I adored those pants.
I'd love a pair of slim-cut black jeans with that kind of pocket on them.
I'm pretty curious what portion of HN's audience is aware of techwear and the work of Errolson Hugh at Acronym or Taka Kasuga at Arc'teryx Veilance. I've noticed that SWE's make up a substantial portion of the techwear community, in part due to the pricing and the overlap with sci-fi/utilitarian tastes.
Me, Inwould avoid the whole problem and remove the pocket from the clothing - I have a lycra-like arm and that holds a phone for jogging and it is useful enough that if I could just slap it onto any piece of clothing and it would stay then I have a pocket I can put onto any clothing i want at any location
My Dickies work jeans have a pocket like the one described in the article, but at the back of the right leg, not the side. I'm pretty sure this is because if you're wearing a tool belt or safety harness none of the traditional pockets are accessible.
This is not exactly revolutionary. I have multiple pairs of bike shorts with slim elastic pockets in that spot. (Actually, a few inches higher, which is easier to reach without bending, and doesn't get in the way any more than the proposed location.)
I have a pair of shorts that are just about to wear out that have a pocket like these, and I love them! Sadly, Patagonia stopped making them years back, and I can’t find any back stock with them.
These trousers look great. I wonder if he’ll make me some...
These pants look awesome. If there was a Kickstarter for these I’d place an order for a few. I like cargo pants because of the side pockets but dislike the bagginess and the other useless little pocket, so these are near perfect.
There are exercise pants for women that have a transparent tight netting/mesh on the legs that run the entire length, and are tight against the skin. I think they are much better for objects that are not rigid.
So funny that I thought precisely about this solution for a long time; but never even considered trying to "build" it myself. Kudos to Sam for doing it. Bravo.
This was such a promising article until it became apparent that, despite the intimation of early paragraphs, the author had no real answer for the pocketlessness women are subjected to...
I like them. So you've eliminated side and butt pockets? I can see keeping the butt pockets as a display platform for design touches, branding etc but inseam side pockets can be discarded.
These are present on my carpenter pants; I find them invaluable for holding my phone, some rags (I have kids) and similar need-to-have-near-always things.
There's a subculture around Everyday Carry (EDC) which has a whole niche market for products like this. This would be an excellent product for that market.
> Women used to have pockets. That “used to” has to count back 150 or even 200 years, and those pockets were often a separate garment, either worn underneath and accessed through a slit in the dress, or worn around the hips overtop, rather than built into the dress directly — but regardless, “it has pockets!” as a joyous surprise is a modern invention.
This part seems particularly unconvincing - if you take this at face value, all women's clothes "have pockets" because women typically carry a purse. I don't know many people who would agree with that.
what I hate are those tiny change nooks sewn into the right trouser pocket so it's like a pocket within a pocket.
In theory they're fine except I always put my keys into my right pocket because I'm right handed. My keys will fall into these mini pockets and get stuck.
These mini pockets should really be on the left side.
The tiny pockets are fine for holding a single key. Where they fail is the modern keychain, with a car key and a door key and a mailbox key and key to enter the gated community and a key for the office and a security key for a computer. Like, key chains the size of a tennis ball really could be anchored off of one's belt or waist on a retracting clip.
I drafted from scratch; not shown here (for fear of distracting from the pockets) are the high waist, button fly, and swallowtail back that make them deeply unfashionable :)
But you could easily add this to almost any pants pattern, so long as the inseam isn't flat-felled.
It's a=just a standard welt pocket on an angle. Find a welt pocket tutorial you like and follow it, but on the outseam :)
The only trick is that the inseam has to be open when you add the pocket to the outseam.
I haven't made a paper pattern of it, yet, because I've cut it differently each time. When I settle on a design I will make myself a pattern -- but it'll be pretty specific to me.
Yeah it reminds me of the climbing pants I use for every day wear[0]. I buy them specifically because they have pockets with zippered side access for when sitting.
This looks clean but I'd worry about stuff sliding out of the pocket, as I've had happen with medium-length waist pockets frequently over the years.
I was just going to say, just the the pocket on my Prana's that I wear every day. My other favorite pocket is my ski jacket breast pocket, just to the left of the main zipper. So easy to access.
What utility does your attempt at shanking people for their manner of dress serve? Aren't you showing that you're a less useful part of society by doing that?
The problem statement discusses the undesirable trade-offs of tight/skinny jeans, yet the model solution isn't even remotely representative of the framework that it suggestively seeks to improve.
I can't help but see this pocket as a liability; a cost-saving excuse to omit a proper securing mechanism of sorts shrouded by a pitch of being innovative. In a perfectly postured world with 2 operational modes--standing and sitting--this might be good enough, but I'd hardly be willing to risk yet another $600+ cellphone to find out when I'm crouching, squatting, gargoyling, kicking legs up, riding a bike, in a sports car bucket seat, etc.
Furthermore, if it's easy for you to slip your phone in and out of, then it'll also be easy for thieves to do so as well.
It's an elegant solution to wear slim fitted pants without awful hip pocket bulges. Cargo pants are not the solution here, as they are huge and baggy and the pockets flop around with anything in them.
I'd love to try these.